The book’s subtitle, How Race and Gender Pandering Corrupt the University and Undermine Our Culture, shows its emphasis is on “delusional victimology” with its umbrella of diversity covering all manner of left-wing nonsense regarding the Marxist trinity of race, sex, and class, not to speak of white privilege, multiculturalism, &c ad nauseam, as those of us involved in higher education know all too well.
What is a delusion? Is it not worse than a simple misapprehension, by definition something tenaciously held on to despite its obvious unreality? How does one talk to people suffering from a delusion?
It is surprising and revolting that on American campuses there have been practically no voices decrying the outlandish claims of the protesters. The only voices of reason come from outside the campus hothouses. (A good example here.) These Emperor-is-fully-clothed claims would require us to believe that American universities and colleges, – which have instituted racial preferences in admissions, scholarships, and faculty hires, special buildings for black students, programs in black studies, endless diversity programs including mandatory “training,” deans in new positions devoted to diversity and equity, speech codes to protect minorities from hurt feelings – that these universities are hotbeds of racism and racial injustice driven by a climate of racial oppression, the consequence of ubiquitous white privilege and the sin of “whiteness.” Nor have there been many voices on campus remarking that the other demands of the protesters usually come right out of the playbook of their radical professors. Few dare point out that the protesters, having been indoctrinated throughout their schooling, are being manipulated by these radicals, their student leaders, and interested outsiders. Continue reading
Consider the “marriage equality” slogan of left-wing advocates of marriage between homosexuals. To us it has always been weak and off-point. All marriages are of course equally marriages, including common-law ones. Same-sex unions or domestic partnerships are not marriages. So in what sense can marriages and non-marriages be equal?
The outing of Rachel Dolezal, the President of the Spokane chapter of the NAACP, as white by her parents sheds light into this dark corner of the liberal mind. Although her parents showed photos of their blonde, blue-eyed girl, according to an AP AP story, she dodged the question of her actual race by stating that “We’re all from the African continent” and “There’s a lot of complexities …and I don’t know that everyone would understand that.” It appears to us that the “complexities” lie exclusively in Miss Dolezal’s mind. Just as Bill Clinton was acclaimed by some as the first black President, for some racial identity need not be factual or biological. If you identify with a group, and “disguise” yourself as Rachel’s mother said about her, your subjective belief becomes reality.
It is a common criticism of liberals that their policy positions reveal more about their subjective states than about reality. Just so with marriage between or among homosexuals. If, as some believe, couples marry themselves, for liberals their couplings become real marriages, which it is incumbent on the non-discriminatory state and Federal governments to recognize. Only in this sense could the slogan of “marriage equality” make sense.